similar to: [LLVMdev] Are instr_iterators invalidated when function inlining is performed?

I just realised I forgot to reply to this. Thanks for advise, it's good to know. Thanks, Dan Liew. On 30 August 2013 16:25, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 7:53 AM, Daniel Liew <daniel.liew at imperial.ac.uk> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm trying to write a small piece of code that inlines all calls to a >> particular

Hi, I'm working on a tool (KLEE) that interprets LLVM bitcode. One of the things it does is it instruments the LLVM bitcode with checks for division by zero. It does this by injecting calls to a function "klee_div_zero_check(long long divisor)" just before every division instruction (e.g. SDiv). These checks are injected by a pass that has been implemented in KLEE. This

I've got a call instruction: call void bitcast (void (%4 addrspace(1)*, <2 x i32>, <4 x float>)* @_Z12write_imagefPU3AS110_image2d_tDv2_iDv4_f to void (%9 addrspace(1)*, <2 x i32>, <4 x float>)*)(%9 addrspace(1)* %dstimg, <2 x i32> %28, <4 x float> %26) nounwind %4 and %9 are both (stripped) opaque structs. InlineFunction() does not inline this because

On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Relph, Richard <Richard.Relph at amd.com> wrote: > I've got a call instruction: > call void bitcast (void (%4 addrspace(1)*, <2 x i32>, <4 x float>)* @_Z12write_imagefPU3AS110_image2d_tDv2_iDv4_f to void (%9 addrspace(1)*, <2 x i32>, <4 x float>)*)(%9 addrspace(1)* %dstimg, <2 x i32> %28, <4 x float> %26)

On May 26, 2009, at 3:15 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: > In Unladen Swallow we (intend to) compile each function as we > determine it's hot. To "compile" a function means to translate it from > CPython bytecode to LLVM IR, optimize the IR using a > FunctionPassManager, and JIT the IR to machine code. We'd like to > include inlining among our optimizations. Currently

Hi Gael, I tried converting to your approach but I had some issues making sure that all symbols accessed by the jit modules have entries in the dynamic symbol table. To be specific, my current approach is to use MCJIT (using an objectcache) to JIT the runtime module and then let MCJIT handle linking any references from the jit'd modules; I just experimented with what I think you're doing,

Hi, I want to convert a function pointer call in the IR of MPlayer to a function call. For example, I have the following line: ... %10 = tail call i32 %7(%struct.demuxer* nonnull %0, i32 %1, i8* %2) #7, !dbg !863222 ... I want to set the target which is stored in %7 to a real function called "demux_lavf_control()" with the following definition: ... define internal i32

Hi, There is a problem with the handling of alwaysinline functions in Clang: they are not always inlined. AFAIK, this may only happen when the caller is in the dead code, but then we don't always successfully remove all dead code. Because of this, we may end up emitting an undefined reference for an "inline __attribute__((always_inline))" function. Libc++ relies on the compiler

Is there a way to access the current MachineBasicBlock info from within CodeGenIntrinsic in SparcV9BurgISel.cpp? The arguments are: Intrinsic::ID iid, CallInst &callInstr, TargetMachine &target, and std::vector<MachineInstr*>& mvec, none of which seem to offer access to the current MachineBasicBlock. Brent

I would like to start prototyping changes towards profile guided inlining. Before doing so, I wanted to get feedback from the community on the appropriate approach. I'm going to layout a strawman proposal, but I'm open to other ideas on how to approach the problem. Depending on what approach we settle on, I *may* be able to commit resources to actually implement this in the near

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 7:17 PM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote: > > On Aug 20, 2015, at 5:19 PM, Evgenii Stepanov via cfe-dev < > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > There is a problem with the handling of alwaysinline functions in > > Clang: they are not always inlined. AFAIK, this may only happen when > > the caller is

Hello, I have a CallInstr for "functionA". I renamed it to "functionB" but I want to decrease number of arguments as functionA accepts e.g two and functionB just one. So far, I dont find any function to just replace args / set args size. Any idea? Maybe other solution... Is there any way to create a new CallInstr for functionB, copy things from CallInstr of functionB a copy

Thanks for the pointers. Am I correct in assuming that putting the precompiled bitcode into a second module and linking (or using the object caches) would result in ordinary function calls, but would not be able to inline the functions? -- lg On Jan 21, 2014, at 11:55 AM, Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com> wrote: > I would say that the incompatibility is by design. Not

In Unladen Swallow we (intend to) compile each function as we determine it's hot. To "compile" a function means to translate it from CPython bytecode to LLVM IR, optimize the IR using a FunctionPassManager, and JIT the IR to machine code. We'd like to include inlining among our optimizations. Currently the Inliner is a CallGraphSCCPass, which can only be run by the

On Mar 15, 2006, at 10:04 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Vikram S. Adve wrote: >> [I've changed the subject to make this a new thread.] >> >> While all of this makes sense to me, note that Markus and John >> were asking about different situations. Markus was asking about >> user-written source code. John was asking about a compiler pass

>> That's a neat idea. To summarize: make Function have 3 optional operands. (For context -- Function currently has 1 optional operand, and my proposal is to move to 0.) >> >> Could someone else chime in on what they'd like to see? > > Sanjoy's idea makes sense to me, but only if we never need to add > prefix/prologue data after functions are created. Are

Eli, Thanks. I don't think it's a bug in the linker, really… it's required to treat (stripped) opaque types as different, since it really has no way to know if the caller and the callee really are referring to the same thing… though it then seems to turn right around and do exactly that by inserting the bitcast. ;-) (That does come from the linker.) That the linker 'works

On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 4:23 AM, Mian M. Hamayun <mian-muhammad.hamayun at imag.fr> wrote: > But I am also looking into the possibility of doing the same using LLVM Pass > Manager (Without using llvm-ld). This looks difficult due to the fact that > the function definitions ought to be in the same module as the caller, in > order to be inlined and then optimized onwards, I guess

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Vikram S. Adve wrote: >> Why can't the compiler pass just call InlineFunction(CallSite) on the >> callsite it wants inlined? The only way that can fail is if LLVM cannot >> ever inline the call (e.g. it uses varargs). > In some cases, that would be fine. But in other cases: > (1) It cannot "un-inline" any function that was previously

> On 2015-Oct-12, at 10:41, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > > > > Vedant Kumar wrote: >>>> That's a neat idea. To summarize: make Function have 3 optional operands. (For context -- Function currently has 1 optional operand, and my proposal is to move to 0.) >>>> >>>> Could someone else chime in on what